SOEN-101: Code Generation by Emulating Software Process Models Using Large Language Model Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software process models are essential to facilitate collaboration and communication among software teams to solve complex development tasks. Inspired by these software engineering practices, we present FlowGen - a code generation framework that emulates software process models based on multiple Large Language Model (LLM) agents. We emulate three process models, FlowGenWaterfall, FlowGenTDD, and FlowGenScrum, by assigning LLM agents to embody roles (i.e., requirement engineer, architect, developer, tester, and scrum master) that correspond to everyday development activities and organize their communication patterns. The agents work collaboratively using chain-of-thought and prompt composition with continuous selfrefinement to improve the code quality. We use GPT3.5 as our underlying LLM and several baselines (RawGPT, CodeT, Reflexion) to evaluate code generation on four benchmarks: HumanEval, HumanEval-ET, MBPP, and MBPP-ET. Our findings show that FlowGenScrumexcels compared to other process models, achieving a Pass@1 of 75.2, 65.5, 82.5, and 56.7 in HumanEval, HumanEval-ET, MBPP, and MBPP-ET, respectively (an average of 15% improvement overRawGPT). Compared with other state-of-the-art techniques, FlowGenScrumachieves a higher Pass@1 in MBPP compared to CodeT, with both outperforming Reflexion. Notably, integrating CodeT into FlowGenScrumresulted in statistically significant improvements, achieving the highest Pass@1 scores. Our analysis also reveals that the development activities impacted code smell and exception handling differently, with design and code review adding more exception handling and reducing code smells. Finally, FlowGen models maintain stable Pass@1 scores across GPT3.5 versions and temperature values, highlighting the effectiveness of software process models in enhancing the quality and stability of LLM-generated code.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".